Philosophy

I’m inspired to write this both for the accusations of “straw manning” that came from Tim's and my essay at the 2025 EPS, and due to examples that I have seen. While no one accused me of this directly (all the interactions I had with people in relation to the essay were positive, even when they were pushing back), I heard through the grapevine that some people were complaining that Tim and I were straw manning Calvinists and other divine determinists. Additionally, I did see

The apostle Paul once rebuked the Galatian church with a startling question: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (Galatians 3:1) Paul was not suggesting that the Galatians had lost their free will or become metaphysical puppets. Quite the opposite. He was holding them responsible for allowing deception to take root—for failing to guard their minds against ideas that undermined truth and freedom. In other words, Paul assumed that being deceived does not eliminate res

On Christmas Eve, as I was walking into the gym, I paused for a brief moment and posted something on social media that had been on my mind: "God > anything else that could possibly be conceived." Many people immediately recognized this as a hat tip to Anselm’s famous definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Others—almost certainly many who have never heard of Anselm—still understood it intuitively and seemed to appreciate it. I went to bed that n

I recently read Galileo's Error: Foundation for a New Science of Consciousness by Philip Goff. I actually listened to it on Audible over the course of four days (mostly while walking my dog or working out). After listening to the first few chapters I decided to purchase the hard copy in order to read it more carefully.  I had no idea what to expect when I started listening to Goff's book narrated by Maxwell Caulfield. I did not know what worldview Goff held or what position

"I’ve decided that Sapolsky embodies a paradox: when you decide free will does not exist because you have weighed arguments for and against it, you prove free will exists." - John Horgan (the science writer) Horgan is exactly right. These words are in response to neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, who argues against free will in his new book, Determined .  But, Sapolsky's book does not demonstrate that humans never possess the libertarian freedom to think. As Horgan notes in F

Challenge For those who like the moral argument, here are my five challenges (framed as questions) for you. 1. Why think that moral realism is true? 2. Why think that moral facts/obligations need an explanation? 3. Why think that God would be able to explain the existence of moral facts/obligations? 4. What about non-theistic accounts of morality? 5. Can you show that theism surpasses all non-theistic accounts of morality as an explanation for morality? I expect that yo

Challenge Here's a challenge for those who think that libertarian free will is necessary for rationality and/or knowledge (I am defining rationality as believing some proposition justifiably and I am defining knowledge as justified true belief). Imagine two worlds: world A and world B. In both worlds, John believes the same proposition on the basis of the same evidence. Moreover, in both worlds, that proposition is true. In world A, John used his libertarian free will to bel

The following is a recent conversation I had with a Calvinist. I enjoyed it because it was not emotionally charged even though he was asking questions in an effort to refute my arguments against Calvinistic determinism. His questions were thoughtful and allowed for clarification from which all can benefit. Please enjoy the following exchange (for clarity, the Calvinist's words are in blue. My words are in black): Calvinist : Dr. Stratton, you have said this many times, but h

Objection Dear Dr. Stratton, I saw the video An Epistemological Case Against Calvinism right when it came out. And I was surprised that the whole video you assumed that a determinist has to argue for general reliability. I can simply reject this premise and argue that God is absolutely reliable. Seems to me that you have to argue for a specific sense of deception. But in the coloquial sense, deception often refers to some form of coercive act. And calvinists deny coercion, s

One of my favorite arguments for the existence of God is known as the Moral Argument (made famous by William Lane Craig). I believe that it is sound and forceful. The deductive syllogism is typically stated as follows: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists. Click here to watch a short video of how William Lane Craig defends the premises of this argument. Click here to wat

An outspoken proponent of Calvinism, exhaustive divine determinism, and compatibilism, recently objected to my claim that the Held Hostage Objection was a silly reason to be a compatibilist (see, What If Science Proves Determinism ). In summary, my response to this so-called "hostage crisis" is threefold: Science is the wrong tool for the job. The Free-Thinking Argument and the Arguments from Reason provide  reasons  to reject potential ignorant claims of scientists. If one i

I've spent inordinate amounts of time debating the issues of determinism and libertarian freedom with those who believe that antecedent (prior) conditions determine all things about humanity. In essence, I have attempted to dialogue with humans who don't think we are much different than puppets or robots .  Since I have had so many debates with people who think they are basically wet robots, I thought it would be fitting to have this conversation with an actual robot -- an on

Joshua Rasmussen  has become one of the most important thinkers in philosophy and theology today. When he speaks, I listen; when he writes, I read! I was blessed to receive a review copy of Josh's new book: Who Are You, Really?: A Philosopher's Inquiry Into the Nature and Origin of Persons . What I love about Rasmussen's writing is that he has the rare gift of being able to take top-shelf philosophy and explain it in such a way so that those who do not have graduate training

Never before have we witnessed first-hand such a rapid degradation of reality. Common sense seems to have died long ago, but now "logic" and "science" are also on their deathbeds. The prognosis of their revivability and survivability is yet to be determined. Their deaths directly relate to the "post-modern" worldview, which believes truth is relative and cannot be known. In today's increasingly secular environment, we are told, "That may be your truth; but it is not mine," or

Question: Dear Dr. Stratton, John Martin Fischer  has stated that one of the primary reasons that he is a compatibilist is because of what Kevin Timpe calls the “Held Hostage Objection” (HHO). The HHO states that if determinism were to be scientifically proven in some fashion then the compatibilist wouldn’t have to alter their views of moral responsibility or human freedom whereas the incompatibilist would have to make major revisions to their worldview (lest they be inconsis

The best defense against "arguments raised against the knowledge of God," as the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:5, is good theology. As an analytic and systematic theologian, I have seen that when one grasps the fact that God is a maximally great being -- and one grasps exactly what that means -- then the multitudes of arguments raised against the existence of God have no teeth in their bite.  In the final chapter of my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere M

When a Christian grasps the maximal greatness of God that is both implied in Scripture and deductively concluded via the Ontological Argument , everything seems to become clear and life gets better (even during times of suffering).  One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis is the following: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Similarly, now that I grasp the utter perfection of G

After surveying the writings of prominent Reformed theologians, I have concluded that many were/are quite open to the concept of what I refer to as limited libertarian freedom . That is to say, although these Reformers might have rejected libertarian freedom when it comes to soteriological matters (issues pertaining to salvation), they seemed to leave metaphysical room and, as Oliver Crisp writes in Deviant Calvinism , “conceptual space, so to speak, to prescind from determin

Question Dr. Stratton, If you say if God determines all things and some believers have false theological beliefs would that mean God determined them to believe false things and that makes God deceptive? And if you would say yes to that.. if you think that God determined Jesus to die on the cross does that make God also a murderer? If you think God determined Pharoah to harden his heart does that make God cruel? If God determined Assyria and Babylon to destroy Israel does that

Objection! "Over and over and over again, Stratton claims that Paul Manata is question-begging against “epistemic” incompatibilism. < See=">See" this="this" link ="link</a>" for="for" details="details"> . But, I don’t understand. Who’s argument is being presented? Is it Manta’s ? Is it the compatibilist’s? Who has the burden here to show that epistemic compatibilism is false? It is clearly NOT the compatibilist’s burden; it is the incompatibilist’s burden. How can an interlo